SergeantSqook

In the base RT and FR scenarios(at least as far as I'm aware, flicked through about half the FR scenarios and most of the base game ones), Soviet Rifle Battalion 44 squads are like this: with 3 teams
 
However when choosing a Soviet rifle battalion in the scenario editor, all the battalion 44 squads will be like this: near identical, but missing one of the teams.
 
Additionally; the 1st platoon of each company is now SMGs
(1st battalion is the one currently in use for FR Katabasis, 2nd is an identical one I added for comparison of what's in the scenario compared to what we seem to get now(squads above are both taken from these formations)) No pictures, but I also pulled up some rifle battalions in June 1944 and it was the same.
 
Just wondering if this was intentional or a bug because I don't see any changes mentioned in the readmes or patch thread. Additionally, neither the base game or FR scenarios have squads like this, it's just what I get when I pick that formation now.
 
The examples I've used here are all Guards Rifle 44, but it seems to be consistent for regular rifle battalion 44s as well
 

The original resupply system was:
The next section in the Battle Entry is the percentage chance an individual unit has of being completely replaced if lost, repaired if damaged (vehicle only), topped off with full ammo, and brought back to a fully rested state.

As in, is there was a 50% chance of resupply, and I had two squads as core units, on 0% ammunition:
Squad A 0% ammo
Squad B 0% ammo
previously there would have been a check for each. Assuming Squad A passes their coin flip and B fails, then you'd end up with:
Squad A 100% ammo
Squad B 0% ammo


In the engine 4 manual, there is the line:

Personnel replacements and ammunition levels are now more uniformly resupplied across all core units between campaign missions, as opposed to the all-ornothing check on each unit done previously

All sounds good. What *exactly* does that mean?


In the above situation does that mean you'd end up with:
Squad A 50% ammo
Squad B 50% ammo

Does the ammo type matter, or is it just a relative "successes/number of units" check?

e.g., if the above was an infantry Squad and an Abrams, would both the Squad and the Abrams be restored to 50% ammunition, regardless of the type of ammunition involved?

Do my eyes deceive me? Are people really comparing "kills per minute" in some hyper sterile lab test to actually argue whether or not a weapon of suppression is better than a different weapon of suppression? In a combined-arms game where individual weaponry is basically irrelevant unless you exclusively play tiny scenarios? Has anyone here actually gotten into combat and just sat completely stationary with a Bren and an MG42 firing at each other and just waited to see who would win? 
 
The Syrians aren't underdogs because the RPK is probably worse than the M249 or something and the Italians aren't underdogs because the Carcano is worse than a Garand, they're underdogs because they're basically at least a full generation behind at every level and can't even split squads
 
Do people here actually play this game, or do they just post about it?

Do my eyes deceive me? Are people really comparing "kills per minute" in some hyper sterile lab test to actually argue whether or not a weapon of suppression is better than a different weapon of suppression? In a combined-arms game where individual weaponry is basically irrelevant unless you exclusively play tiny scenarios? Has anyone here actually gotten into combat and just sat completely stationary with a Bren and an MG42 firing at each other and just waited to see who would win? 
 
The Syrians aren't underdogs because the RPK is probably worse than the M249 or something and the Italians aren't underdogs because the Carcano is worse than a Garand, they're underdogs because they're basically at least a full generation behind at every level and can't even split squads
 
Do people here actually play this game, or do they just post about it?

Do my eyes deceive me? Are people really comparing "kills per minute" in some hyper sterile lab test to actually argue whether or not a weapon of suppression is better than a different weapon of suppression? In a combined-arms game where individual weaponry is basically irrelevant unless you exclusively play tiny scenarios? Has anyone here actually gotten into combat and just sat completely stationary with a Bren and an MG42 firing at each other and just waited to see who would win? 
 
The Syrians aren't underdogs because the RPK is probably worse than the M249 or something and the Italians aren't underdogs because the Carcano is worse than a Garand, they're underdogs because they're basically at least a full generation behind at every level and can't even split squads
 
Do people here actually play this game, or do they just post about it?

The 30 point hinds only have ammo for their .50cal MGs, probably still a bit cheaper than they should be but really only annoying more than actually useful

LETS ****ING GO AAAA😤

👀

Good hustle Rice

CMA is still alive in our hearts. A few people still play it. (Including me)

If we're discussing the hopes and dreams of revamping old games;
 
How many organs do I sell to get CMAK 2?

@gallycadetWell you've caused some amount of aggravation no doubt due to clearly having an axe to grind and getting it out there by having a review of pretty questionable information that you've put forward as objective fact, like:
"The engine isn't designed for modern combat, it was built for WW2" (engine was literally designed for modern combat, Shock Force was the initial release)
"LoS is dice rolls" (it isn't)
"It isn't equipped for MOUT combat because I have to micromanage and can't just cartwheel my men forwards to victory" (actually laughed to be frank with you)
"It's not fun to not be able to take losses" (It's a simulator, realism is the focus over fun. Not necessarily a poor reason to not recommend but should be stipulated because some people find realism fun)
"Play CMO/Armoured Brigade" (Neither of those are CM)
 
I will grant you the distressing lack of engineering vehicles (although engineers can make minefields safely passable)
 

@gallycadetWell you've caused some amount of aggravation no doubt due to clearly having an axe to grind and getting it out there by having a review of pretty questionable information that you've put forward as objective fact, like:
"The engine isn't designed for modern combat, it was built for WW2" (engine was literally designed for modern combat, Shock Force was the initial release)
"LoS is dice rolls" (it isn't)
"It isn't equipped for MOUT combat because I have to micromanage and can't just cartwheel my men forwards to victory" (actually laughed to be frank with you)
"It's not fun to not be able to take losses" (It's a simulator, realism is the focus over fun. Not necessarily a poor reason to not recommend but should be stipulated because some people find realism fun)
"Play CMO/Armoured Brigade" (Neither of those are CM)
 
I will grant you the distressing lack of engineering vehicles (although engineers can make minefields safely passable)
 

@gallycadetWell you've caused some amount of aggravation no doubt due to clearly having an axe to grind and getting it out there by having a review of pretty questionable information that you've put forward as objective fact, like:
"The engine isn't designed for modern combat, it was built for WW2" (engine was literally designed for modern combat, Shock Force was the initial release)
"LoS is dice rolls" (it isn't)
"It isn't equipped for MOUT combat because I have to micromanage and can't just cartwheel my men forwards to victory" (actually laughed to be frank with you)
"It's not fun to not be able to take losses" (It's a simulator, realism is the focus over fun. Not necessarily a poor reason to not recommend but should be stipulated because some people find realism fun)
"Play CMO/Armoured Brigade" (Neither of those are CM)
 
I will grant you the distressing lack of engineering vehicles (although engineers can make minefields safely passable)
 

Just a few of my opinions (and they are just opinions).
I don't own SF2 so my comments relate more to BN and RT.
Are they perfect, no.  Not many things in life are.  But none of the 'imperfections' stop me having a great time playing them.
Are they expensive?  At full price yes, but I would say they are well worth the money. The Steam price for SF2 is currently much lower.
Are they old?  Yes, but that makes no difference to me as I haven't found anything newer that's anywhere near as good.
Is the community toxic?  I have only been here since earlier this year but have never experienced toxicity from anyone, neither BFC or the wider community.  Quite the opposite in fact.
Those are my opinions.

@gallycadetWell you've caused some amount of aggravation no doubt due to clearly having an axe to grind and getting it out there by having a review of pretty questionable information that you've put forward as objective fact, like:
"The engine isn't designed for modern combat, it was built for WW2" (engine was literally designed for modern combat, Shock Force was the initial release)
"LoS is dice rolls" (it isn't)
"It isn't equipped for MOUT combat because I have to micromanage and can't just cartwheel my men forwards to victory" (actually laughed to be frank with you)
"It's not fun to not be able to take losses" (It's a simulator, realism is the focus over fun. Not necessarily a poor reason to not recommend but should be stipulated because some people find realism fun)
"Play CMO/Armoured Brigade" (Neither of those are CM)
 
I will grant you the distressing lack of engineering vehicles (although engineers can make minefields safely passable)
 

"As a gentleman with apparently 30 award view(?)" you seem very arrogant & childish to respond like that.

Anyway, a lot of people do not get that CM is a simulator, not a game. And no it's not an excuse, let me explain it.

What you see on screen isn't what's happening in the simulator. There's a lot more going on than what's visible or known to the player, for example a bunch of soft factors such as "Experience, Morale, Leadership, and other elements operate at the individual soldier level and collectively transform how units behave",  these factors go way deeper than you think, you may have noticed that already. 
About the LOS system, sometimes it bugs out, but I only had that happening 2-3 times IIRC. But it's not broken.
Soldiers can either be occupied, sending information trough (C2 Link), Tired, In shock, stressed out or the other soldier/tank sits still & is well camouflaged.
The LOS also isn't a simple ray cast as in RTS traditional games. A forest tile with trees on it for example has some randomness to it, I think it should be obvious why that is, if not; It's to simulate bushes/leaves/grass where a unit can hide in & look trough leaves. Spotting abilities & experience take a big role here. Take into account that most units are well camouflaged & are sitting still. It's thus very difficult to spot units in it. Buildings are even more tricky, as their layout is always unknown(Spoiler: it's not 1 room). 

I hope this gives you some insight to what level CM actually simulates. And please, don't compare it to RTS games x). 

To @gallycadet's credit, he did edit his review to change his statement on LOS being based on a dice roll. Props where they are due. 

@gallycadetWell you've caused some amount of aggravation no doubt due to clearly having an axe to grind and getting it out there by having a review of pretty questionable information that you've put forward as objective fact, like:
"The engine isn't designed for modern combat, it was built for WW2" (engine was literally designed for modern combat, Shock Force was the initial release)
"LoS is dice rolls" (it isn't)
"It isn't equipped for MOUT combat because I have to micromanage and can't just cartwheel my men forwards to victory" (actually laughed to be frank with you)
"It's not fun to not be able to take losses" (It's a simulator, realism is the focus over fun. Not necessarily a poor reason to not recommend but should be stipulated because some people find realism fun)
"Play CMO/Armoured Brigade" (Neither of those are CM)
 
I will grant you the distressing lack of engineering vehicles (although engineers can make minefields safely passable)
 

@gallycadetWell you've caused some amount of aggravation no doubt due to clearly having an axe to grind and getting it out there by having a review of pretty questionable information that you've put forward as objective fact, like:
"The engine isn't designed for modern combat, it was built for WW2" (engine was literally designed for modern combat, Shock Force was the initial release)
"LoS is dice rolls" (it isn't)
"It isn't equipped for MOUT combat because I have to micromanage and can't just cartwheel my men forwards to victory" (actually laughed to be frank with you)
"It's not fun to not be able to take losses" (It's a simulator, realism is the focus over fun. Not necessarily a poor reason to not recommend but should be stipulated because some people find realism fun)
"Play CMO/Armoured Brigade" (Neither of those are CM)
 
I will grant you the distressing lack of engineering vehicles (although engineers can make minefields safely passable)